Are all scientists 'nice'?

Nolanger

Watching that Eddie Hobbs RTE show and they're talking to dieticians who look more like TV presenters than professional scientists. So here's my question. Are all scientists nice? Do they have to be this way to find jobs, get on television, receive research funding, and lecture? Where are the cranky/eccentric scientists with zero communication skills who go against the popular opinions spouted by the media? Where are the square pegs? Do these people exist in Ireland? Where are the contrarian scientists in this country?

Turtwig

Scientists are human, they don't have to have one particular set of characteristics.

tony 2 tone

Dunno about the rest of them but I'm lovely

StompToWork

I thought all scientists were Mad.

"Good News, Everybody"

Dave!

Yes, they're all nice

mikhail

Nolanger wrote: »

...Where are the contrarian scientists in this country?

Not on TV.

Turtwig

mikhail wrote: »

Not on TV.

Thank God.

El Siglo

I don't know if I qualify for what you're looking for but I'll give you an honest description of myself for the purposes of amusement.
I don't shower or shave very often and I only cut my hair 3-4 times a year, because I'm busy with work*. I hate everybody and usually bore people with talking about the stuff I'm researching (sea-level reconstructions and sediment). I refuse to ever research anything got to do with climate change, because it's such a fucked up problem (particularly the almost dogmatic adherence to it, it's not that I don't think it's happening I just don't like it being peddled the way it is, it's adaptation not mitigation we should be concerned with). I have a routine in the morning which must be strictly followed (essentially breakfast and southpark prior to doing work). I have slept in my make-shift laboratory... for a week. I have once stayed up 30 hours just so I could count and classify foraminifera that I was looking at. I also twitch and shake my head for some unknown reason (think it's nerves or something). That's it I think.










*Doing a postgrad, I consider the stuff I have done or am doing in it to be work.

Nolanger

Cool, to add to my post do you think there's too little criticism of scientists and what they do? Someone said recently that the arts have a lot more critics than science. Do you think being a 'nice' scientist and getting on with everyone is actually harmful to research? Do the 'square pegs' in science get filtered out and are refused funding? Would a scruffy, sexist, racist scientist get offered postgrad work or a job in Ireland? Is it all about being a teamplayer these days instead of thinking differently or speaking your own mind?

El Siglo

Nolanger wrote: »

Cool, to add to my post do you think there's too little criticism of scientists and what they do? Someone said recently that the arts have a lot more critics than science. Do you think being a 'nice' scientist and getting on with everyone is actually harmful to research? Do the 'square pegs' in science get filtered out and are refused funding? Would a scruffy, sexist, racist scientist get offered postgrad work or a job in Ireland? Is it all about being a teamplayer these days instead of thinking differently or speaking your own mind?

To all of those questions, it goes on merit. With research funding it's a little more precarious, not just anything gets funded (e.g. EPA funding usually goes to specific topics now). I think the scientists on television are not totally representative of the kinds of people that are engaged in research most of the time. But that happens in a lot of fields so it's nothing special. As you put it the 'square pegs', you wont hear from such people until something happens, because they're too busy.

Turtwig

Nolanger wrote: »

Cool, to add to my post do you think there's too little criticism of scientists and what they do? Someone said recently that the arts have a lot more critics than science. Do you think being a 'nice' scientist and getting on with everyone is actually harmful to research? Do the 'square pegs' in science get filtered out and are refused funding? Would a scruffy, sexist, racist scientist get offered postgrad work or a job in Ireland? Is it all about being a teamplayer these days instead of thinking differently or speaking your own mind?

Generally speaking, science is complicated. As such, the general public is largely uninformed on the topic. For this reason they are best off not hearing the actual debates that take place within the scientific community. Science is a vociferous subject, outcries happen all the time. Thankfully, most of the time the public is unaware. The reason public awareness is such a bad thing at these times is fairly simple : Media Coverage. Scientists are human, they don't have time to learn or check up on others people's theory, so a lot of research is based on trust. For example, in physics you'll get physicists who'll very often use mathematical techniques without testing or proving the logic behind such techniques. So if the media, falsely represents a scientific hypothesis, then odds are unless a scientist's research is directly involved in that hypothesis, they'll also fall for the false representation. The worst aspect to media coverage though, is who the media will actually pick to discuss these controversies. Generally speaking, the vast majority of scientists are a cautious bunch, most of them will rather avoid affirmative words such "definitely", "absolutely", "certainly" etc. The problem here is that way of communication simply doesn't make for good viewing or news stories. So instead, the media need to fish out the more "dogmatic" scientists who will stick to these buzzwords because they are so utterly convinced that such and such a theory is correct or incorrect as the case may be. The head of the IPCC, Rajendra K. Pachauri, is a good example of this. In face of overwhelming evidence that a part of the working group report on the Himalayan Glaciers was factually incorrect he denied it stating it was the usual denier malarky (even though in this particular case, it was the popular science magazine NewScientist that brought such errors to light). Such dogmatists on both sides of the debate help to hinder the science as those caught in the middle no longer maintain the level of voice they once had. Sad but true, scientific debates are best kept out of the public because such debating in public merely slows down the arrival at a resolution and adds to the now unsettling fact that a large percentage of the human population distrust the practice that lead to them living more comfortable lives. Can you blame them, when more often that not, you hear preachers instead of scientists?

Mr Benevolent

Since when has a dietician been a scientist?

Turtwig

Confab wrote: »

Since when has a dietician been a scientist?

Since modern medicine emerged. A nutritionist is the non scientist. If you want right now you can start up a practice claiming to be a nutritionist.